Mr. Job We shall begin on page 40
[2] — 'Consideration of Other Pertinent Factors.' I suggest
that section be now read by the Secretary....
[The Secretary read the section of the report]
Mr. Hickman On page 44 in connection with
government expenditure on fisheries research, it
shows for 1945-46 there was $12,000 less a
refund from the Canadian treasury of $4,100, but
in 1946-47 there is no refund of a similar nature.
I was wondering if the convenor could tell us
what the refund constituted?
Mr. Keough The figures for 1946-47 run only
to the end of January. The government year goes
to the end of March, and if there was a refund
coming it would be at the end of March.
Mr. Keough The Canadian government did not
use the whole $12,000 for 1945-46, but returned
some to the Newfoundland government. In 1946-
47 they expected to use the whole sum.
Mr. Smallwood I would like to call attention to
the last paragraph on page 55: "Without seeking
to detract in any way from the Board's accomplishments the Committee would suggest
that henceforth the Board should seek to exercise
more supervision at the point of production to
ensure better quality products." I think, Mr.
Chairman, that at this point I would be justified
in reading that letter from Lamaline, because it
deals with the question of quality and standards
and grades of fish, and it reads as follows....
Dear Sir:
On hearing your broadcast over VONF,
which we admire very much and listen to at
every opportunity, I was asked by the people
of Lamaline to write to you and ask you to
ask the question at the Convention if anyone
knows how much merchantable codfish is
exported from Newfoundland. We sell
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 403
thousands of quintals of codfish here in
Lamaline, and we never get one merchantable fish. I don't know one man that ever got
a merchantable codfish, so we would like to
know if there is such a thing as a merchantable codfish. We salt and dry and wash
our
fish, and we make our fish. We made better
fish last summer than for years past, but we
never got one merchantable fish. Now the
people are very anxious to know if there is
such a thing as a merchantable codfish, and
we thought you would be the right man to
find out and let us know, either over the air
or by letter.
We hear over the radio that you speak too
loud, but the louder you speak the better we
like it.
I do hope we will get a better cull on our
fish next year than Madeira or West Indies.
Of course if there is no such thing as a merchantable fish we would like to know it,
but
please don't mention my name, but I would
like to know if there is such a thing as merchantable codfish, because I think it
is right
for the people to know.
Yours truly,
"X"
I would like Mr. Job, or someone else, to tell us
are the words "merchantable fish"just words, or
is there such a thing? Could someone throw some
light on that perplexing question?....
Mr. Job I should think the best way for Mr.
Smallwood to find that out would be to interview
the Fisheries Board. We must presume their fish
is not good enough to classify that way. It is
probably greatly exaggerated; I imagine there is
a certain quantity of merchantable fish
everywhere, but the quantity is small nowadays
because the same care is not taken with the cure;
the main bulk of the fish shipped is good Madeira
fish....
Mr. Smallwood I know there is no merchantable fish in Lamaline, but what they want to know
is, is there such a thing as a merchantable fish?
Mr. Hollett I object very strongly to the use of
this Convention for answering anonymous letters. I can bring in half a dozen tomorrow.
I object
to anonymous letters, the contents of which I
doubt very much. I can't conceive of any fisherman making fish and not getting any
merchant
able fish at all. It is a good many years since I was
associated with a fishing settlement, but I know
they did make considerable merchantable fish.
Mr. Hillier As to whether or not merchantable
fish has been made at Lamaline, I say, "Yes, it
has been made there"; but according to the information furnished by fishermen, they
have not got
that rating. One man took particular care in curing
his fish, and he took his fish along and it was
culled and as he said, it was "picture fish", but he
got no better price than the other man who
brought in an inferior quality. Therefore I can
understand the man saying, "Is there any merchantable fish?" Whether it is the grading
or not
I cannot say; but according to the information
furnished me by the fishermen of Lamaline, and
they are all shore fishermen, they don't seem to
be able to get no. I grade. Where the fault lies I
cannot say, but these are the facts.
Mr. Job It seems rather a waste of time to spend
time on that question when we have such a large
report to get through.
Mr. Smallwood I don't think the people of
Newfoundland would consider it one moment
wasted, and I would ask Mr. Hillier if he believes
this letter to be genuine.
Mr. Hillier That's a genuine letter from Lamaline, and I happen to know the man who wrote
that letter. He is a fisherman of many years. He
is not very active now.
Mr. Job The remedy seems to be some sort of
an inspector to whom a man can appeal on a
question of cullage. Anyone who knows anything
about cullage can see that it's very difficult to say
on the borderline whether a fish is first or second
quality. I say that's a matter of representation to
the Fishery Board.
Mr. Starkes I think that matter should be dealt
with in this Convention, because the people will
know what we are doing on the fisheries. I disagree with Mr. Job and agree with the
letter from
Lamaline to Mr. Smallwood. The rule is that the
fish should be culled Merchantable, Madeira, and
Thirds. The last two are all the one price to the
fishermen, and therefore they are not encouraged.
They can make fish that's classified as Thirds and
get the same price as they would for Madeira. My
experience is that it is almost impossible to get a
no. 1 fish that will pass inspection.
Mr. Hollett Has the Fishery Committee information as to the amount of merchantable fish
404 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
shipped from Newfoundland last year? If the
fishermen are getting no grade for merchantable
fish, and they are getting merchantable fish, there
is something wrong.
Mr. Reddy It is very difficult for the fishermen
to get merchantable fish now. I don't know why,
but the bulk of it is Madeira.
Mr. Hollett Do I understand from Mr. Job that
there are no records to show how much fish was
merchantable?
Mr. Job The exports don't show it. There is no
record in the exports of the amount of merchantable fish. They simply have a record
of the
amount to certain markets.
Mr. Hollett But it must be graded. How else is
it shipped?
Mr. Crosbie Every fish has to be passed by a
government inspector. It is shown in the Fishery
Board return, the amount of merchantable fish,
Madeira, etc., because you must have a record
before it is shipped.
Mr. Job But do they keep the statistics?
Mr. Hollett There are three copies made out,
one for the packer, one for the shipper and one
for the Fishery Board.
Mr. Job Well, we have not got it here and we
can't get it from the Customs.
Mr. Ashbourne I think that information can be
secured from the Fishery Board, and I believe I
heard or read recently about the small percentage
of merehantable fish that was exported from
Newfoundland. We export some merchantable
fish from Twillingate, not a very large amount,
but the fishermen do sell some merchantable fish
to us. The exact percentage I could not tell, but I
firmly believe that that information can be
secured from the Fisheries Board.
Mr. Hollett Will Mr. Job undertake to get that
information from the Fisheries Board?
Mr. Job I think Mr. Ashboume is chairman of
the subcommittee on fish and perhaps he would
try to get it for us.
Mr. Hollett Thank you, and will you try to find
out how much merchantable fish was brought in
from Lamaline and elsewhere?
Mr. Miller I know a little about selling fish to
St. John's, and we generally believe the cull to be
rather strict in St. John's, but I have seen a
fisheries receipt for a total of 26 quintals of fish,
and there were 23 quintals of merchantable out
of 26. These figures can be verified
Mr. McCarthy It would be very interesting to
find out if there is any merchantable fish exported, because there are a lot of people
inquiring
about that. I have seen quite a lot of fish on the
west coast, but I have yet to see a merehantable
fish. There is a difference of $1 per quintal, I
think.
Mr. Hickman Mr. Smallwood a few minutes
ago said that Lamaline had never known a merchantable fish. I would like to know on
what
authority he said that.
Mr. Job I suppose we will have to try to get that
information. Will that end it for the time being?
We have 15 pages of this to do.
Mr. Newell Does this whole thing not point to a
weakness in our whole method of curing codfish?
I am no authority on this, but wherever you go
you hear the same kind of comments, and usually
where there is a great deal of smoke there is a
little fire somewhere. As far as I understand the
system of culling and exporting fish, going back
a step from where we were yesterday, I presume
whoever is selling codfish employs the local
culler, who in turn is under oath to act fairly in
the best of his ability to all parties concerned. Of
course no man can be expected to do more than
the best of his ability. I am not sure if the man's
ability is ascertained before he is given a license
or not.
Mr. Job it is very difficult to get expert cullers.
Mr. Newell Codfish is bought by the dealers,
and culled by local cullers appointed by the local
dealer. I would not say that the culler gave an
advantage to the local dealer, but that clause that
the man must cull to the best of his ability does,
after all, admit of certain very grave weaknesses.
On the other hand, when the same codfish is
exported to the markets it is culled under the
supervision of inspectors of the Fishery Board.
When the exporting merchant is packing his fish
for export he has the same cullers in his store, but
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 405
he also has a supervisor or inspector from the
Fishery Board on the premises, who is seeing to
it that the codfish is culled strictly according to
Fishery Board standards. That does admit of a
double standard, to use that phrase, in the marketing of codfish.... I think that
better supervision is
required at the point of production.
Mr. Starkes I don't think Mr. Newell is quite
clear there. My experience is that before a culler
can get a permit to cull fish, that application has
to be signed by the fish inspector of the territory
over which he is working. For instance, if I
wanted a culler today I could not appoint any man
on my premises. That man had to be approved by
the fish inspector before his application was sent
in to the Fishery Board, before he could get his
license at all.
Mr. Smallwood There is just one point that I
want to make, and that's about a plentiful supply
of fresh water in the washing of fish. In looking
at the tariff I find that the duty on pumps — well,
there are two rates, one for pumps for mining
purposes, and one "for all other purposes", including the fishery. It is 20% full
duty, 20%
intermediary duty and 10% preferential. Well, if
a pump is imported from the British Isles then the
duty is 10%, but if it comes from Canada it is
20%. Does anyone happen to know where most
of the pumps come from — Britain or this side of
the Atlantic?
Mr. Smallwood Well, that means that the duty
will be 20%, so that the fishermen using the
pumps pay a price which I imagine would make
the use of these pumps very strictly limited. We
all know as far as the inshore fishery is concerned
there are not too many pumps used. I know places
where they are used, and I take it that the Committee puts a lot of value on that.
What is wrong
with the government, or the Fisheries Board acting for the government, or some official
body of
the government, importing 10-15,000 pumps
from the manufacturer, getting them at a special
price, bringing them in duty free and selling them
at cost? If it is valuable for the fishermen to have
a plentiful supply of clean water why not do the
thing right, and why leave it to the individual
fisherman when the government could bring in
lots of pumps and sell them at perhaps half the
price that they are paying for mem now? Has
anybody considered that?
Mr. Cashin When did they use fresh water for
washing fish?
Mr. Smallwood Clean water, I mean. The pump
is the ideal thing. I remember the first one I saw
in Catalina ten years ago....
Mr. Northcott I have been nibbling at the
saltfish business for the past 25 years, and 1 would
like to remind the Convention that all that glitters
in the saltfish business is not gold. The past few
years much money has been made by many
people and firms from the fishery, but a few years
back I got the jitters from it, and not the gold that
glitters. The same can be applied to many other
fishermen and firms all over Newfoundland.
Today, I am happy to see the fish plants coming to the fore, and I hope and pray that
markets
will be found to take care of our fresh frozen
products, and that many more new factories will
spring up and take care of the various other
species of fish that we have around our coast. It
will also give considerable employment that we
need to make the dollar go round and round....
Mr. Vincent I think we should have the specific
amount of fish and the grades classified. If the
Fisheries Board have these figures, it should not
be difficult to get them.
Mr. Jones ....I understand on the southwest
coast, they use boats of ten tons — one dory and
three men — and I understand there is no bounty
given for boats of that size. I think that is a great
pity, if it is true. If they could get a bounty, more
would be built. Do they get bounty under 12 tons?
Mr. Hollett Page 54: "The Committee urges the
appropriate authorities that they should be concerned whenever possible so to orientate
improvements in transportation and communication
facilities as to have the maximum impact upon
the development of our fisheries. Thus the connecting of the roads system of the Burin
and
Avalon Peninsulas is of vital importance." Can
Mr. Job tell me what importance such a road
would have in Burin or Avalon?
Mr. Job That came up in interviews with Mr.
Arthur Monroe who runs a plant at Burin. He
expressed the opinion that if the road were com
406 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
pleted, it would make a big difference to the
fishery there.
Mr. Job It would enable them to bring fish from
other places to the plant.
Mr. Job Placentia Bay and Trinity Bay. You
would not fish from the south of Trinity Bay up
to there. I do not know the distance.
Mr. Hollett Therefore the government is going
to spend $15 million for the fish plant. I can see
no advantage to the saltfish trade. You talk of
green, fresh fish — I would like for someone to
point out some fishing places along that road.
Mr. Starkes I agree with Mr. Job. There are
several other places where roads are important —
e.g. Green Bay. There it is four miles from the
plant to the sea; if the road was made passable by
truck, the men in Shoal Cove could send fish to
the plant. I do not agree with one road only, Burin
to Avalon.
Mr. Reddy Ithink the road to Burin is absolutely essential to the fish plant at Burin. One
reason
Mr. Monroe gave us was that he cannot get in
touch with the plant except by steamer; and it is
necessary for him to get in contact daily; and the
only means is by road.
Mr. Hollett You are going to put a road there so
that Mr. Monroe can get back and forth to his
plant?
Mr. Reddy For the benefit of the plant. The
Burin Peninsula is the most isolated place in the
island of Newfoundland.
Mr. Banfield I disagree with Mr. Hollett regarding there being no fish caught in the bottom of
Fortune Bay. There is a certain amount caught.
Mr. Hollett There may be a reason for spending
$1.5 million on a road there; I was born in Burin
and if the road is necessary, I am perfectly in
accord. I am taking the attitude that they should
show me that it is essential. Just how much fish
is caught down there?
Mr. Job You do not know how much can be
caught.
Mr. Hollett I have seen so much thrown away
on roads, that I am getting fed up, especially
when talking about a balanced budget. We have
the distance from Burin to Argentia — 40 miles
— if Mr. Monroe wants to go to Argentia, he can
go across the bay. If you can show me that this
road is essential and beneficial then I am all in
accord. The terrain through which the road will
go has very little agricultural prospects. If we
forget the transportation of fish — and there is
very little fish — I cannot see what advantage it
is to the cold storage plant. That road will be open
six months of the year. Wherein lies the advantage?
Mr. Job It will be aconnection between Fonune
Bay, St. J ohn's and other settlements, apart from
the fish plant. There should be a connection between Fortune Bay and St. John's.
Mr. Hollett Do you know they go from St.
John's to Fortune Bay by road? A distance of 55
miles?
Mr. Smallwood How many fishing settlements
will it link up with Burin? How many on the
Burin Peninsula side and how many on the
Placentia Bay side?
Mr. Ryan In the district of Placentia West. it
will link up Boat Harbour and there are only half
a dozen fishermen there.
Mr. Smallwood I cannot picture the way the
road is going to run. This should not be in the
report as a sample of road for fisheries.
Mr. Reddy It is not altogether for fisheries; it is
to prevent isolation in the Burin Peninsula. The
greatest salt codfishery in Newfoundland is on
the Burin Peninsula.
Mr. Hollett If Mr. Reddy was minister of public
works would he be prepared to authorise the
expenditure in connection with the Burin and
Avalon Peninsulas, knowing how little it would
affect the economy of Newfoundland?
Mr. Reddy I certainly would. It would bring
those people out of the isolation that they have
been in for years and years.
Mr. Hollett I lived in Burin, I could always get
to Canada or anywhere else I wanted to go; I was
never isolated on the Burin Peninsula, if I was not
afraid of getting seasick.
Mr. Ryan I agree with Mr. Hollett. The only
explanation they give for it is that Mr. Monroe
can get to the plant in Burin.
Mr. Reddy I agree with Mr. Job that it is essential. You have to get there by steamer and you
are
sometimes waiting a month; therefore the road is
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 407
essential.
Mr. Vincent I agree with Mr. Holiett for the
reason we should have had the road 30 years ago.
Mr. Starkes On the north side of Bonavista Bay,
thereis no chance to get out of it. You cannot take
a boat.
Mr. Keough It was intended to stress "where
possible and feasible". Unfortunately we mentioned the Burin road; perhaps we should
have
mentioned Bonavista, Bonne Bay or Cape Norman. You are making a mountain out of a
molehill.
Mr. Keough We have not said it was more vital
than any other place.
Mr. Vincent I think the word "vital" should be
deleted.
[Moved and seconded that the word "vital" be deleted. Motion carried]
Mr. Starkes Page 47: "The Committee is aware
of the existing scheme that provides for a possible
maximum of $80 insurance on the death of trawl
fishermen." Is that just trawlers?
Mr. Smallwood The bank fisherman, if he is
lost, his family gets $80, from whom?
Mr. Job From the government through the Customs department.
Mr. Smallwood The fisherman pays it to the
Customs when the vessel clears; and if he loses
his life his family gets $80. Is that all a man gets
if he loses his life on the Banks?
Mr. Job The amount was recently increased
from $60 to $80. That is what he gets and what
he gets from the PMDF.
[1]
Mr. Hollett That is paid just once, not $80 a
year. Is this the fishermen's insurance scheme I
asked about, or have you something else?
Mr. Hillier I think I was responsible in some
way for social security having been introduced
into the Fisheries Report. For years I have felt that
fishermen should have some protection. Our
fishermen begin fishing at the age of 18 and fish
until they can no longer get into a boat and in
many cases it has been brought to my notice,
when they can no longer get into a boat they are
very much in the same position as when they
began. When the first meeting was held I asked
permission to mention that social security
scheme. I had in mind something in the nature of
retiring allowances; that is, a man on reaching the
age of 60 would receive a retiring allowance so
that for the remainder of his days he would be
looked after, and in the case of sickness would
not have to fall back on the government. There
have been cases where men in the prime of health
have been called across the bar. They have nothing to leave to their wives and families.
The wife
and family is completely dependent upon, I think,
$10 a quarter — the widow's mite. I felt that
should not be. There should be something to
provide for his family. Therefore I introduced the
idea that there should be some quarterly contribution made by the fishermen so that
their families
could be looked after. The insurance scheme
before us applies in the case of death; there is no
provision in the case of sickness and both the man
and his family must fall back absolutely upon the
government and I do not think that is good
enough. I have here a social security scheme
drawn up by Mr. Bannikin which was presented
to the Department of Natural Resources in 1943.
I think it is a good one. My plan was to collect
from the fishermen and that is not so easy. His is
to collect so much yearly from the exporters of
our products, place it in the hands of the government and from that to pay yearly
to fishermen on
pensions. If it is in order. I would ask the
Secretary to read that scheme.
Mr. Chairman What is your scheme? If it is in
the nature of general social security it would
apply not only to fishermen but to others as well.
If it is something for the protection of fishermen
in the event of loss of life in the course of their
advocacy, we could have it read.
Mr. Chairman If it is to apply to all, it is irrelevant here because we are discussing fisheries.
On the other hand if the Convention desires to
read it, they may do so.
Mr. Job I would suggest that you might have
that printed and circulated to the members. It is
an interesting document. This question of social
security is dealt with by the Board of Trade and
they are on the point of making some recommendation in connection with it. I think
it is a waste
of time reading that now, but it might be
408 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
mimeographed and circulated to the members.
Mr. Chairman I think it will be something in
the nature of an encroachment on the Healm and
Welfare Committee, and I suggest to Mr. Hillier
that he submit it to that committee. In the meantime it is no harm to have it mimeographed
and
circulated among the members, but it is not strictly relevant to this debate.
Mr. Hillier I feel that a social security scheme
for the fishermen would be a great benefit.
Mr. Smallwood The report Mr. Hillier has was
prepared by Mr. Bannikin, and deals entirely with
social security for fishermen only. I think that Mr.
Job's suggestion is an excellent one and would
meet the desire of Mr. Hillier to give the information to the other members.
Mr. Crosbie With regard to the discussion held
a short time ago regarding the quality of fish. I
have here the figures for 1943, 1944 and 1945,
and the percentage of merchantable fish for these
years is 4%, 2% and 2%.
Mr. Jackman Before we get on to the catch
again I would like to protest against this niggardly sum the government is going to
offer our
fishermen. I would not like to say what I think
about it, but I would like the opportunity of
putting a vote of censure on the government.
Mr. Job That's been in force here for a very long
time, you know.
Mr. Vardy Before you put the question I would
like the committee to turn to the report where it
says "less $90 ton bounty." I am wondering if the
Committee is thinking of boats from 20 tons up.
I think you will find that it is $70 per ton from 12
to 25 tons, and there is not any bounty on the
engines if they are gasoline; they must be full
diesel. You get $15 bounty on full diesel.
Mr. Job Mr. Reddy can reply to that.
Mr. Reddy That's only put in for comparison,
probably the real bounty on that boat was $45.
That's the fishery bounty today.
Mr. Vardy This is going over the air, and people
will be writing in expecting to get $90 per ton for
that boat. It's nice to clear it up. I may say that I
have not looked at these figures before, although
I made a guess the other day when I mentioned
the assistance given ex-servicemen. I am happy
that my guess was pretty well correct. I would
also like to have a word on this social security
scheme. I have a lot of sympathy with this scheme
prepared by Mr. Bannikin. I think we all will
agree that Mr. Bannikin, being a very good
businessman (he has invested most of the money
he has made in various fishery experiments and
otherwise), has a good knowledge of conditions
in the country. I am in full accord with all the
Committee say there. I agree with the report,
generally speaking, all the way through. I would
like to see more of these central curing stations
to take care of the surplus fish. It would be a good
answer to a lot of the country's taxes being spent
very unwisely in other directions, by selling to
better advantage to promote and modernise the
fishery. It is still the staple industry.... I would
like to see the future government of this country
exert every effort to have fresh freezing plants
built all over the country. Until then the fishing
industry will have a struggle.
That matter of $80 insurance. I would like to
add my support to the previous speakers, because
I think it is an insult to the widow ofa man who
goes to the Banks in Newfoundland or Labrador
or anywhere else. We know that our government
could easily place an insurance on the head of
every fisherman, for a small nominal cost, and I
think arrangements could be made whereby, for
a minimum premium. provision could be made
for those who were less fortunate. The time is ripe
for it....
Mr. Hollett There is just one other point in
connection with this. I may have something to
say on the insurance later.
Mr. Hollett I understood the government were
planning a fishermen's insurance scheme.
Mr. Job I never heard of it. The Board of Trade
are working on it, and they have some proposals.
Mr. Hollett Did you inquire from the government whether they were doing anything?
Mr. Hollett Would it be too much to ask the
Committee to find out before the debate is over?
The point I want to make is on page 54: "Under
the incomparable chairmanship of Mr. Raymond
Gushue the Board has functioned to the very
great advantage of the industry and the country."
I believe the Board is doing an excellent job, and
I understand the Committee intended to pay the
Board and Mr. Gushue a compliment, but what
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 409
kind of a compliment is it when you look over at
the next page: "the fullest co-operation of the
trade that made the notable achievements of the
Fisheries Board possible." Well now, is that correct? What is going to happen when
the trade
takes away its genial support?
Mr. Job I don't think they will take it away. I
dare say Mr. Hollett will remember that in 1920
or 1921 when the late Sir William Coaker endeavoured to tackle this question of the
organisation of the fisheries, the trade was divided very
seriously, and it got into a political atmosphere
and the thing was an absolute failure. I believe if
the trade had supported it, then the whole thing
would have been brought into being then, but
there was so much political spleen brought in that
it killed it. We have been fortunate in getting the
trade to support it now. I believe that if they don't
we will not be able to carry it on.
[After some further discussion, the section was passed. The Secretary read the next
section[1]]
Mr. Job This is all on the co-operative movement — a very important one in the future of
the
country, and personally I think it is a very important matter. This section was written
— as most
the rest of it was — by Mr. Keough, who is a keen
co-operative man, and he did reserve the right to
criticise the figures given at the end of the section,
having regard to the challenging by certain
people of the figures of the co-operatives. The
contention of the one witness we had before us,
who is interested in canning, was that it would
pay the country better if the lobsters, instead of
being shipped alive, had all been canned. It seems
very doubtful whether that's correct, but anyhow
Mr. Keough reserves the right to criticise that
although he agreed to put it in the report in favour
of the opposition.
Mr. Keough What I have to say I have written
out in the form of a statement, so that we will not
get mixed up in the statistics.
With regard to that section of this report that
deals with the co-operative movement at its
points of contact with the fisheries — and in
particular in respect of the co-operative shipping
of live lobster — I think it only fair to the Committee to say that it did accept
in good faith
information which I supplied. In addition a further statement was supplied to the
Committee, the
intent of which was to show wherein the co-
operatives could have obtained greater returns if
instead of marketing their lobster live they had
canned it and marketed the same direct. I was
quite willing that such statement should be included in this report in order that
both sides of the
story might be told. But when I signed the
Fisheries Report I did so with the distinct understanding that I would take some issue
with that
statement of how the co-operatives might have
done better when such statement would come
before the Convention. I now do so....
[Mr. Keough argued at length that it was uncertain whether co-operatives had in fact
lost money by shipping live lobster]
Mr. Hollett There seems to be a disagreement
among the Fisheries Committee. I could not follow Mr. Keough's dissertation and I
would like
to have a copy of his speech. An attempt has been
made to prove there is more benefit from canned
than from live lobster. I think it is a matter between the co-operatives and the trade.
Mr. Smallwood I am not going into the point
Mr. Keough touched on. He is an auditor among
the credit societies where a great many lobsters
have been handled in recent years, and if he is
satisfied it is the most economical thing to ship
them alive, I am going to accept his word for it.
That is not what I wanted to say, but rather this:
it is a wonderful thing that this Fisheries Committee, consisting of several of the
country's best-
known fish merchants and exporters, brings in a
report, a big section of which deals with the
co-operative movement.... The fact that this
movement, young as it is, has been able to
produce for this Convention men of the type of
Mr. Keough, Mr. Newell and Mr. McCarthy, is
the most important thing about this whole
country today. I am not too optimistic about this
country and I am completely honest in that. There
are some encouraging things and some discouraging things about it. One of the encouraging
things, basically and fundamentally, is the existence of this great co-operative movement
which
does not extend far enough and which I hope will
extend throughout the country; that will make a
big difference in the lives of our people. I congratulate the co-operatives on being
represented
in this Convention. Ten years ago we would have
been laughed at for talking co-operatives; today
it is not laughing matter. Ten years from now,
410 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
please God, it will be the biggest thing in this
country.
Mr. Job I might ask Mr, Newell to give us some
information as to what government support the
co-operative movement is getting. Some people
think it is getting too much and some people think
it is not getting enough.
Mr. Newell I did not intend to have anything to
say on this. As far as I know, the co-operative is
a good thing. It has not only the strong endorsement but the flattering OK of the
Fisheries Committee. I was prepared to leave it at that. I am not
entirely in a position to speak for the government
or the Co-operative Division. I have never
worked for the (Co-operative Division of the
government. I think, though, I am doing the same
kind of work as their field workers are. As far as
I know, there is no co-operative society in this
country today receiving financial assistance from
the government. When the idea of co-operatives
was first mooted by the government — it was
mooted long before that by Sir Wilfred Grenfell,
the first co-operative was organised by him 35 to
40 years ago — but when the idea was first
mooted by the government they brought over an
expert from England. He was an expert on cooperatives but not an expert on Newfoundland,
because he recommended, I understand, that the
only way we could get a start here would be by
government loans. I believe considerable sums
were loaned to three co-operative societies. One
of these was known to exist years afterwards and
the people took it over and built a good strong
society. Whether the other two or three ever paid
off their loans, I am not in a position to say. That
first experiment on the basis of loans was written
off as a failure generally. The past did sow in the
minds of the people the idea of co-operatives. As
far as I know, not one cent of government money
was invested in this society which was taken over
by the people.
Mr. Keough There are one or two in land settlements.
Mr. Newell I did not know that. I believe they
were not organised; I think the money was invested in them in the land settlement
stage.
Mr. Newell There is an amount spent on cooperative education. I do not know how much.
Mr. Newell That covers the salaries of some
eight or ten field workers plus their travelling
expenses.
Mr. Newell They are not up to their full staff. It
is not as many as 22. There are a number of
vacancies. Anyway, that $50,000 grant is spent
on co-operative education, that is to say they send
out adult teachers to organise study groups to
assist people in the organisation of study groups.
They are not permitted, as far as I know, to
participate in the business management of such
societies, so that any money that is expended is
expended as an educational vote.
Mr. Newell There is taxation on co-operatives.
At the present time I am not too sure about the
details. I cannot speak on them. I am not much
concerned with the business end of it; it is merely
from a layman's point of view. I understand they
are taxed on any profits. Strictly speaking, if they
were co-operatives they would not make profits,
but some of them do make profits. By that I mean
they sell goods to people who are not members
of the societies and thereby make profits. They
are taxed on the basis of these and also on any
amount they pay as dividends on share capital
invested by their share holders....
Mr. Northcott I must agree with Mr. Keough on
the question of lobsters....
Mr. Job In reply to Mr. Hollett I would like to
say there is no disagreement in the Committee.
We thought it fair to present both sides of the
case. Mr. Keough thought so too.
Mr. Hollett I did not say you had a fight — I
merely said there was a disagreement. I am not a
co-operative man as far as the co-operative
movement is concerned, I am not connected with
it. That table on page 56 is interesting. I find that
in 1946 at least, the co-operatives have persuaded
the trade to come up to their price.
Mr. Job 1 do not think you noticed the note at
the top of page 57: "....cold storage operations
were not conducted in the area in l942-1943-
1944." Cold storage — that refers to salmon.
Mr. Newell In order to keep the record straight,
there is another point you have to consider which
does not appear in this report. During the years
1942-43, 1944-45, these particular co-operatives
were the only producing co-operatives. As far as
salmon was concerned they shipped a high
quality product and received the best prices. In
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 411
other words they did not lose one single pound
for bad quality. The fishermen looked after it all
the way through. We did not need fishery inspectors — we had 250 inspectors and these
were the
fishermen themselves. But last year, 1946, they
ran into their first snag — 16% of the total
product was affected by spoilage, which does
make some difference in the figures. The first
four years were maximum figures; last year was
a doubtful year.
Mr. Burry In rising to comment on this section
of the report, it does not mean I was not impressed
by the rest of it. I note that the Committee has
recognised that our basic problem is our people
scattered around our great coastline. They have
made a very good attempt to solve some of the
difficulties of this problem. It has been suggested
by other members that there is a gap — and we
all recognise it and are sensitive to it — between
the primary producer and the exporter and the
trade. The Committee has recognised this and
have made some very good suggestions to solve
the problem. That seems to be one of their aims.
They made suggestions for the modernisation of
our fisheries and I support this section of the
Committee's report because this is also one of
their suggestions — one way in which we can
span the gap. I am pleased because it came from
the Fisheries Committee with representatives on
it of various sections of our country, and undoubtedly the trade and exporters have
played such a
part in presenting this report, it is hopeful for the
future....
[The committee rose and reported progress, and the Convention adjourned]
